Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
×
Home

Retrospective analysis of portal dosimetry pre-treatment quality assurance of prostate volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans

  • Borna Maraghechi (a1), Jack Davis (a1) (a2), Shyam Badu (a1), Andre Fleck (a1) (a3), Johnson Darko (a1) (a2) (a3) and Ernest Osei (a1) (a2) (a3) (a4)...
Abstract
Background

Electronic portal imaging device (EPID) offers high-resolution digital image that can be compared with a predicted portal dose image. A very common method to quantitatively compare a measured and calculated dose distribution that is routinely used for quality assurance (QA) of volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and intensity-modulated radiation therapy treatment plans is the evaluation of the gamma index. The purpose of this work was to evaluate the gamma passing rate (%GP), maximum gamma (γ max), average gamma (γ ave), maximum dose difference (DDmax) and the average dose difference (DDave) for various regions of interest using Varian’s implementation of three absolute dose gamma calculation techniques of improved, local, and combined improved and local.

Methods and materials

We analyzed 232 portal dose images from 100 prostate cancer patients’ VMAT plans obtained using the Varian EPID on TrueBeam Linacs.

Results

Our data show that the %GP, γ max and γ ave depend on the gamma calculation method and the acceptance criteria. Higher %GP values were obtained compared with both our current institutional action level and the American Association of Physicists in Medicine Task Group 119 recommendations.

Conclusions

The results of this study can be used to establish stricter action levels for pre-treatment QA of prostate VMAT plans. A stricter 3%/3 mm improved gamma criterion with a passing rate of 97% or the 2%/2 mm improved gamma criterion with a passing rate of 95% can be achieved without additional measurements or configurations.

Copyright
Corresponding author
Correspondence to: Dr Ernest Osei, Department of Medical Physics, Grand River Regional Cancer Centre, 835 King St W, Kitchener, ON, Canada, N2G 1G3. Tel: 519 749 4300, Ext: 5407. E-mail: ernest.osei@grhosp.on.ca
References
Hide All
1. Shaffer, R, Morris, WJ, Moiseenko, V et al. Volumetric modulated arc therapy and conventional intensity-modulated radiotherapy for simultaneous maximal intraprostatic boost: a Planning Comparison Study. Clin Oncol 2009; 21: 401407.
2. Zhang, P, Happersett, L, Hunt, M, Jackson, A, Zelefsky, M, Mageras, G. Volumetric modulated arc therapy: planning and evaluation for prostate cancer cases. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2010; 76: 14561462.
3. Maulana, A, Pawiro, SA. Dosimetry verification on VMAT and IMRT radiotherapy techniques: in the case of prostate cancer. J Phys Conf Ser 2016; 694: 012010.
4. Rout, B, Shekar, MC, Kumar, A, Muralidhar, K. Dosimetric study of RapidArc plans and conventional intensity modulated radiotherapy for prostate cancer involving seminal vesicles and pelvis lymph nodes. Int J Cancer Ther Oncol 2016; 4 (1): 418425.
5. Otto, K. Volumetric modulated arc therapy: IMRT in a single gantry arc. Med Phys 2008; 35: 310317.
6. Wolff, D, Stieler, F, Welzel, G et al. Volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) vs. serial tomotherapy, step-andshoot IMRT and 3d-conformal RT for treatment of prostate cancer. Radiother Oncol 2009; 93: 226233.
7. Kjr-Kristoffersen, F, Ohlhues, L, Medin, J, Korreman, S. RapidArc volumetric modulated therapy planning for prostate cancer patients. Acta Oncol 2009; 48: 227232.
8. Stojadinovic, S, Ouyang, L, Gu, X, Pompoš, A, Bao, Q, Solberg, TD. Breaking bad IMRT QA practice. J Appl Clin Med Phys 2015; 16: 154165.
9. Nelms, BE, Chan, MF, Jarry, G et al. Evaluating IMRT and VMAT dose accuracy: practical examples of failure to detect systematic errors when applying a commonly used metric and action levels. Med Phys 2013; 40: 111722.
10. Hussein, M, Rowshanfarzad, P, Ebert, MA, Nisbet, A, Clark, CH. A comparison of the gamma index analysis in various commercial IMRT/VMAT QA systems. Radiother Oncol 2013; 109: 370376.
11. Vieillevigne, L, Molinier, J, Brun, T, Ferrand, R. Gamma index comparison of three VMAT QA Systems and evaluation of their sensitivity to delivery errors. Phys Med 2015; 31: 720725.
12. Bailey, DW, Kumaraswamy, L, Bakhtiari, M, Malhotra, HK, Podgorsak, MB. EPID dosimetry for pretreatment quality assurance with two commercial systems. J Appl Clin Med Phys 2012; 13: 8299.
13. Bakhtiari, M, Kumaraswamy, L, Bailey, DW, Boer, SD, Malhotra, HK, Podgorsak, MB. Using an EPID for patient-specific VMAT quality assurance. Med Phys 2011; 38: 13661373.
14. Fogliata, A, Clivio, A, Fenoglietto, P et al. Quality assurance of RapidArc in clinical practice using portal dosimetry. Br J Radiol 2011; 84: 534545.
15. Nicolini, G, Vanetti, E, Clivio, A et al. The GLAaS algorithm for portal dosimetry and quality assurance of RapidArc, an intensity modulated rotational therapy. Radiat Oncol 2008; 3: 24.
16. Mans, A, Remeijer, P, Olaciregui-Ruiz, I et al. 3D dosimetric verification of volumetric-modulated arc therapy by portal dosimetry. Radiother Oncol 2010; 94: 181187.
17. Song, JH, Kim, MJ, Park, SH et al. Gamma analysis dependence on specified low-dose thresholds for VMAT QA. J Appl Clin Med Phys 2015; 16: 263272.
18. Howell, R, Smith, I, Jarrio, C. Establishing action levels for EPID-based QA for IMRT. J Appl Clin Med Phys 2008; 9: 1625.
19. Greer, PB, Popescu, CC. Dosimetric properties of an amorphous silicon electronic portal imaging device for verification of dynamic intensity modulated radiation therapy. Med Phys 2003; 30: 16181627.
20. Low, DA, Harms, WB, Mutic, S, Purdy, JA. A technique for the quantitative evaluation of dose distributions. Med Phys 1998; 25: 656661.
21. Bladh-Jonasson, C. Patient-specific quality assurance for helical tomotherapy: an evaluation of two different detector systems. M.Sc. dissertation, Lund University, Lund, Sweden, 2010.
22. Darko, J, Kiciak, A, Badu, S, Grigorov, G, Fleck, A, Osei, E. SU-F-T-272: patient specific quality assurance of prostate VMAT plans with portal dosimetry. Med Phys 2016; 43 (6): 3525.
23. Stasi, M, Bresciani, S, Miranti, A, Maggio, A, Sapino, V, Gabriele, P. Pretreatment patient-specific IMRT quality assurance: a correlation study between gamma index and patient clinical dose volume histogram. Med Phys 2012; 39: 7626.
24. Ezzell, GA, Burmeister, JW, Dogan, N et al. IMRT commissioning: multiple institution planning and dosimetry comparisons, a report from AAPM Task Group 119. Med Phys 2009; 36: 53595373.
25. Kim, JI, Park, SY, Kim, HJ, Kim, JH, Ye, SJ, Park, JM. The sensitivity of gamma-index method to the positioning errors of high-definition MLC in patient-specific VMAT QA for SBRT. Radiat Oncol 2014; 9: 167.
26. Heilemann, G, Poppe, B, Laub, W. On the sensitivity of common gamma-index evaluation methods to MLC misalignments in Rapidarc quality assurance. Med Phys 2013; 40: 031702.
27. Fredh, A, Scherman, JB, Fog, LS, Munck af Rosenschold, P. Patient QA systems for rotational radiation therapy: a comparative experimental study with intentional errors. Med Phys 2013; 40: 031716.
28. Steers, JM, Fraass, BA. IMRT QA: selecting gamma criteria based on error detection sensitivity. Med Phys 2016; 43: 19821994.
29.Varian Medical Systems. Portal Imaging and Portal Dosimetry Reference Guide, Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, CA, USA, 2008..
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Journal of Radiotherapy in Practice
  • ISSN: 1460-3969
  • EISSN: 1467-1131
  • URL: /core/journals/journal-of-radiotherapy-in-practice
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Keywords

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed